While I may not be an orbital mechanics expert I do know a thing or two about kinematics...
1 km/wk is a downward velocity. It may be an average velocity, but that information is not useful unless you know the beggining and end points of the period over which it was averaged. Furthermore, average velocity in such a case is misleading because the instantaneous (downward) velocity will always be greater than any average velocity. This is why downward acceleration is important.
The loss of altitude is casused by the loss of tangential velocity, and while tangential velocity and acceleration may be useful parameters, the are less interesting than the radial components.
Speaking of failing to grasp the situation,
It can't mention downward velocity - because there isn't any. The station is losing height because...
What exactly would you call a change in position over time? I call it velocity.
True, but if the ISS is at 340 km and it is dropping at 1 km/day, then we have almost a year to fix the problem.
This is not the case, because as the summary points out the rate of descent is increasing, and this acceleration is significant. Ignoring it results in a wildly inaccurate estimation, so much so that it would be better to not report numbers at all (unless of course the numbers only purpose is to make the press release sound scientific.)
A second degree of precision is necessary to accuratly nail down the problem to a meaningful timescale (days).
A third degree of prescision (jerk), might be useful for NASA, but is of no interest to the public. Additionally acceleration is something that most people reading about the ISS will understand, unlike jerk, which is rarely a useful parameter.
Do you see the "unless it's yelling fire in a crowded theater, or child porn" exceptions in the first ammendment either? Does that mean those are legal?
The definition of obsenity is not vague. In order for something to be obscene, it has to be explicity forbidden by law, fail to have scientific, artistic, or literary value, and appeal to prurient interest judged by an average person, applying contemporary community standards.
The only thing slightly vague in there is that community is not explicitly defined.
The US didn't ban GTA:SA. After the rating was raised to Mature, many stores voluntarily pulled their copies. I know for a fact that I can still go to EBGames and buy the mature rated game.
I wouldn't be so sure, while carbon fiber it great for things like racecars, and road bikes, it isn't the necessarily an improvement for laptops. To me it sounds like a marketing gimmick, because carbon fiber is cool and futuristic. I wouldn't count on extensive R&D going into this decision.
The clock only ticks twice a day, so the aliens will be able to tell whether it's AM or PM, the day, month, year, the position of the innermost 5 planets, and the current zodiac sign, but not the second (much less the trillionth fraction of a second.)
The timekeeping mechanism is self winding, but the display requires winding. The idea is that it will keep time regardless, but someone (or something) is required to read it, so "reward" them for being there by updating the display.
I think if something interesting (subversive or otherwise) appeared to come from the Oval Office printer, the first assumption whould not be that it was W.'s doing, but rather that the tracking mechanism had been forged.
Aside from the fact that even if Bush knew how to use a printer, he has a building full of people to print things for him.
To be fair this is a different material than the previous two articles, the first two describe an alumina glass, whereas this article describes an aluminum oxynitride ceramic.
Polishing a metal and case hardening are not work hardening. Polishing removes surface imperfections, reducing the depth and width of micro fissures, which can propagate and lead to various (usually fatigue related) failure modes. Case hardening is a chemical process that deposits additional carbon near the surface of the part making it... harder.
Work hardening operations are things like cold rolling, peening, and extruding. They harden the surface by pre-straining it, increasing the effective yield strength.
A demonstration of this is if you try to bend a spoon several times, each time it becomes harder and harder to bend it at the same spot. This is particularly dramatic if you can find a piece of annealed 1/2'' copper rod. Bending it the first time is extremely easy, bending it back is, well, a challenge.
I don't think hate speech is as simple as you make it out to be. You don't have to threaten violence (or death) for speech to be hateful. Typically you do have to make a generalization. Now is it hateful if I generalize based one race? Probably. Profession? Maybe. Political affiliation? Now there is some serious grey area, especially if the political affiliation is primarily associated with a racial group.
Basically it is damn near impossible to strike down political dissidents, if hate speech is permitted, just as it is damn near impossible to censor the statue of David if porn is permitted.
In my opinion allowing hate speech or porn is a safeguard to protect more worthy freedoms, and any society should be tread lightly if they wish to preserve freedom of expression.
To me banning either hate speech or porn is a sign of where a societies priorities lie. Europe is more concerned with protecting art and culture, whereas the US is more concerned about protecting political activism and civil disobedience. Which makes perfect sence when you look at the history of the two different areas. Europe has a long history of amazing cultural achievements, sometimes in the face of adversity, and the US has a history of rebellion and challenging the status quo, often in the face of adversity.
As I said earlier, it isn't that one is more free than the other, rather the different societies value different freedoms.
Ok so I guess I am going to get into the relative merits of porn and hate speech.
The danger in banning porn is that after porn is gone you move onto banning literature and art that have provocative, or controversial themes. It is better to not ban porn, so that there isn't danger of banning the statue of David.
The danger in banning hate speech is that after hate speech is gone you move onto banning political or economic speech that is provocative or controversial. It is better not to ban hate speech, so that there isn't danger of banning communist or libertarian rhetoric. If you ban "I hate Jews," the rhetoric will change to, "I hate bankers," which will further morph into, "I hate rich people," which leads directly to, "I'm a socialist." If you try to draw a line in the sand, the danger is that someone decides since all the hateful people are republicans (an example) we should disallow the republican party.
I'm not going to say that banning either porn or hate speech is inevitably going to lead to banning something more worthy, but you have to admit that there is a fine line between porn and provocative art, just as there is a fine line between classism and racism.
So that means by the first amendment I can exercising my right to expression by snorting cocaine, screwing a horse, buying a hooker, and screaming fire in a theatre, and then publishing troop movements on the internet.
Just because you would like to have unimpeded free speech doesn't make it so. You live in a community, and whether you like it or not if they deem that drug use, prostitution, bestiality, and treason aren't acceptable, and that these acts contribute negatively towards the health or safety or decency of the community you do no longer have a right to them.
That's not to say that it is ok to use laws such as sodomy acts to opress people, but I doubt very much that you can come up with an argument that beastiality, urination, or fisting somehow oppress a class of people.
So what we can say, do, print, or distribute anything we feel like just because
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are practicle (and legal) limits, defined by community standards of what is and isn't acceptable. Otherwise I could go in front of your kid's grade school and pass out sexually explicit fliers.
I'm not saying the case law is perfect, just that it is silly to assume that you can express yourself in any damn way you feel like just because of the first ammendment.
Slashdot Mirror
1 km/wk is a downward velocity. It may be an average velocity, but that information is not useful unless you know the beggining and end points of the period over which it was averaged. Furthermore, average velocity in such a case is misleading because the instantaneous (downward) velocity will always be greater than any average velocity. This is why downward acceleration is important.
The loss of altitude is casused by the loss of tangential velocity, and while tangential velocity and acceleration may be useful parameters, the are less interesting than the radial components.
Speaking of failing to grasp the situation,
What exactly would you call a change in position over time? I call it velocity.
True, but if the ISS is at 340 km and it is dropping at 1 km/day, then we have almost a year to fix the problem.
This is not the case, because as the summary points out the rate of descent is increasing, and this acceleration is significant. Ignoring it results in a wildly inaccurate estimation, so much so that it would be better to not report numbers at all (unless of course the numbers only purpose is to make the press release sound scientific.)
A second degree of precision is necessary to accuratly nail down the problem to a meaningful timescale (days).
A third degree of prescision (jerk), might be useful for NASA, but is of no interest to the public. Additionally acceleration is something that most people reading about the ISS will understand, unlike jerk, which is rarely a useful parameter.
Do you see the "unless it's yelling fire in a crowded theater, or child porn" exceptions in the first ammendment either? Does that mean those are legal?
The definition of obsenity is not vague. In order for something to be obscene, it has to be explicity forbidden by law, fail to have scientific, artistic, or literary value, and appeal to prurient interest judged by an average person, applying contemporary community standards.
The only thing slightly vague in there is that community is not explicitly defined.
My mistake after the rating was raised to adults only it was pulled from store shelves. My point, however, still stands.
Reading the summary makes me think either the PR firm who wrote it doesn't understand acceleration, or expects us to be unable to.
The orbit could currently be decaying at 1km/wk, but that is less useful than saying the paperclip I just dropped is currently traveling at 15m/s.
In order to convey the predicament of the ISS the article should mention altitude, downward velocity, and acceleration.
FBI carckdown on obsenity. Obsenity is not porn.
IMHO the FBI should leave well enough alone, and let obenity be enforced at a local level, but there is no porn crackdown.
The US didn't ban GTA:SA. After the rating was raised to Mature, many stores voluntarily pulled their copies. I know for a fact that I can still go to EBGames and buy the mature rated game.
I wouldn't be so sure, while carbon fiber it great for things like racecars, and road bikes, it isn't the necessarily an improvement for laptops. To me it sounds like a marketing gimmick, because carbon fiber is cool and futuristic. I wouldn't count on extensive R&D going into this decision.
No, the carbon fiber only adds 500Mhz, you need the aftermarket wing crudely bolted through the LCD to get the 1GHz boost.
The clock only ticks twice a day, so the aliens will be able to tell whether it's AM or PM, the day, month, year, the position of the innermost 5 planets, and the current zodiac sign, but not the second (much less the trillionth fraction of a second.)
The more appropriate question is it y10k compliant.
The timekeeping mechanism is self winding, but the display requires winding. The idea is that it will keep time regardless, but someone (or something) is required to read it, so "reward" them for being there by updating the display.
Impactful is the worst non-word ever.
Whichever marketing clown invented it to describe the impact of advertising ought to be drawn and quartered.
I know language evolves and all that, but what's wrong with saying
Ok, now im a troll too.
I think if something interesting (subversive or otherwise) appeared to come from the Oval Office printer, the first assumption whould not be that it was W.'s doing, but rather that the tracking mechanism had been forged.
Aside from the fact that even if Bush knew how to use a printer, he has a building full of people to print things for him.
True, I guess I'm just more accepting of than I am of dupes.
To be fair this is a different material than the previous two articles, the first two describe an alumina glass, whereas this article describes an aluminum oxynitride ceramic.
It's not a metal, it's a ceramic.
... harder.
You can't work harden ceramics.
Polishing a metal and case hardening are not work hardening. Polishing removes surface imperfections, reducing the depth and width of micro fissures, which can propagate and lead to various (usually fatigue related) failure modes. Case hardening is a chemical process that deposits additional carbon near the surface of the part making it
Work hardening operations are things like cold rolling, peening, and extruding. They harden the surface by pre-straining it, increasing the effective yield strength.
A demonstration of this is if you try to bend a spoon several times, each time it becomes harder and harder to bend it at the same spot. This is particularly dramatic if you can find a piece of annealed 1/2'' copper rod. Bending it the first time is extremely easy, bending it back is, well, a challenge.
I don't think hate speech is as simple as you make it out to be. You don't have to threaten violence (or death) for speech to be hateful. Typically you do have to make a generalization. Now is it hateful if I generalize based one race? Probably. Profession? Maybe. Political affiliation? Now there is some serious grey area, especially if the political affiliation is primarily associated with a racial group.
Basically it is damn near impossible to strike down political dissidents, if hate speech is permitted, just as it is damn near impossible to censor the statue of David if porn is permitted.
In my opinion allowing hate speech or porn is a safeguard to protect more worthy freedoms, and any society should be tread lightly if they wish to preserve freedom of expression.
To me banning either hate speech or porn is a sign of where a societies priorities lie. Europe is more concerned with protecting art and culture, whereas the US is more concerned about protecting political activism and civil disobedience. Which makes perfect sence when you look at the history of the two different areas. Europe has a long history of amazing cultural achievements, sometimes in the face of adversity, and the US has a history of rebellion and challenging the status quo, often in the face of adversity.
As I said earlier, it isn't that one is more free than the other, rather the different societies value different freedoms.
Ok so I guess I am going to get into the relative merits of porn and hate speech.
The danger in banning porn is that after porn is gone you move onto banning literature and art that have provocative, or controversial themes. It is better to not ban porn, so that there isn't danger of banning the statue of David.
The danger in banning hate speech is that after hate speech is gone you move onto banning political or economic speech that is provocative or controversial. It is better not to ban hate speech, so that there isn't danger of banning communist or libertarian rhetoric. If you ban "I hate Jews," the rhetoric will change to, "I hate bankers," which will further morph into, "I hate rich people," which leads directly to, "I'm a socialist." If you try to draw a line in the sand, the danger is that someone decides since all the hateful people are republicans (an example) we should disallow the republican party.
I'm not going to say that banning either porn or hate speech is inevitably going to lead to banning something more worthy, but you have to admit that there is a fine line between porn and provocative art, just as there is a fine line between classism and racism.
So that means by the first amendment I can exercising my right to expression by snorting cocaine, screwing a horse, buying a hooker, and screaming fire in a theatre, and then publishing troop movements on the internet.
Just because you would like to have unimpeded free speech doesn't make it so. You live in a community, and whether you like it or not if they deem that drug use, prostitution, bestiality, and treason aren't acceptable, and that these acts contribute negatively towards the health or safety or decency of the community you do no longer have a right to them.
That's not to say that it is ok to use laws such as sodomy acts to opress people, but I doubt very much that you can come up with an argument that beastiality, urination, or fisting somehow oppress a class of people.
There are practicle (and legal) limits, defined by community standards of what is and isn't acceptable. Otherwise I could go in front of your kid's grade school and pass out sexually explicit fliers.
I'm not saying the case law is perfect, just that it is silly to assume that you can express yourself in any damn way you feel like just because of the first ammendment.
sheesh link an article that explains cool flow visualization techniques, on an interesting subject, and draws interesting conclusions...
But not a single picture. So I did my own digging. Here's one. And another.
Absolutely, but I think i pre-empted you here